Hi, all
the useful proposal-report at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg/current/msg05562.html
is a good start point to direct an (almost at all) ignorant into a
summarization.
follow your discussion lead me to a simple observation :
it seem that there is a contradiction as expressed by
(7a) (corollary). Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all
three).
...........
(10) One size never fits all.
from RFC 1925 (ok, it's a 1st april, but there is truth, inside)
or, in other therms
it is obvious that a "major" change will have a "major" impact and
corresponding (whatever expressed) cost.
must a reader mainly care about "backward compatibility", "performances",
"cost", "style" or what ?
and little bit different question from "constrain list for voluntary
adoption" :
what are, if any, the underling directive from RRG about "Good, Fast,
Cheap" balance ?
is it RRG (on behalf of internet community) major interest to have "fast"
or "cheap" or "good"
transition|implementation|maintenance|performance|compatibility ?
you know, RRG messages are plenty of linked details and is it not easy to
follow all your mind and specific knowledge, don't blame me if off-topic,
am the "dumb one" of the list...... :D
cheers
Alessandro
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
